"The headline amount makes Kotick the second highest-paid CEO in the US for 2012, behind only Oracle CEO Larry Ellison (who made $96.2 million in 2012). But Kotick's number is a bit misleading, since the $64.9 million includes $55.9 million in stock options. That amount will actually be vested during the course of five years, even though regulatory rules require they all be counted for the 2012 filing."

For this reason I do wish articles (not just here) would use "compensated" instead of "paid" for situations like this. There is a real difference.

I really think this kind of madness should come to an end. Getting paid more than say 300K - 500K is just not justified. For sure he and other CEOs are not some kind of Albert Einstein of leadership and big-scale management, they are just abusing their position (power and visibility) to get a much better deal than other people in his company, who are for sure much more intellegent than him (but probably not more astute). I am referring to the engineers, artists and designers making the actual product, and who get buried at the end of the chain.

He may be good for his job, but his skills are for sure not one in a million. Also to reach these positions you need a good deal of high-profile contacts (more important than showing virtuosity in your skills), so the population in question is rather scarce, making even less probable the cause for him being a sort of genius.

I really think this kind of madness should come to an end. Getting paid more than say 300K - 500K is just not justified. For sure he and other CEOs are not some kind of Albert Einstein of leadership and big-scale management, they are just abusing their position (power and visibility) to get a much better deal than other people in his company, who are for sure much more intellegent than him (but probably not more astute). I am referring to the engineers, artists and designers making the actual product, and who get buried at the end of the chain.

He may be good for his job, but his skills are for sure not one in a million. Also to reach these positions you need a good deal of high-profile contacts (more important than showing virtuosity in your skills), so the population in question is rather scarce.

Absolutely. His skills are maybe one in a thousand, if that. All of these CEOs are grossly overpaid. The vast majority are figureheads whose most effective strategy is to get out of the way of employees who actually create value.

One need only compare current compensation to that typical in the 1950s- 1980s adjusted for inflation.

I once heard an exec liken his ilk to "the Michael Jordans of the business world" -- if he meant the sneakers, then perhaps.

What is especially irksome is that most execs not only didn't create the company, or grow it from an early stage, but that they get rewarded for sucking. Look at at the financial guys who got huge comps as their profits tanked. Outrageous.

Ugh. Just imagining how many mid-ranged, interesting yet high-quality games you could fund with 60 million of that, still leaving him richer than almost everyone here, makes me sick to the stomach. Heck, you could even throw out a whole AAA game and not care whether it draws a single sale.

I get that videogames hate him and he probably is bad for the videogames industry however as a CEO he is doing exactly what he is getting paid to do extremely well. Activisions games sell like hotcakes and the stock price reflects it. So though people are screaming about the endless string of sequels and destruction of their favorite series they end up being either a vocal minority or dishonest and up buying the games anyway. So though he may be a dick he obviously found the right balance. I doubt he cares what the public thinks of him while he is making $15mil plus huge stock bonuses a year.

I get that videogames hate him and he probably is bad for the videogames industry however as a CEO he is doing exactly what he is getting paid to do extremely well. Activisions games sell like hotcakes and the stock price reflects it. So though people are screaming about the endless string of sequels and destruction of their favorite series they end up being either a vocal minority or dishonest and up buying the games anyway. So though he may be a dick he obviously found the right balance. I doubt he cares what the public thinks of him while he is making $15mil plus huge stock bonuses a year.

Assuming Cheesewhiz's numbers are correct, do you think he is worth 7% of Activision's gross profits? If it was something like 0.5%, maybe, ok, but 7% is pretty huge.

I get that videogames hate him and he probably is bad for the videogames industry however as a CEO he is doing exactly what he is getting paid to do extremely well. Activisions games sell like hotcakes and the stock price reflects it. So though people are screaming about the endless string of sequels and destruction of their favorite series they end up being either a vocal minority or dishonest and up buying the games anyway. So though he may be a dick he obviously found the right balance. I doubt he cares what the public thinks of him while he is making $15mil plus huge stock bonuses a year.

Assuming Cheesewhiz's numbers are correct, do you think he is worth 7% of Activision's gross profits? If it was something like 0.5%, maybe, ok, but 7% is pretty huge.

Gross profit, according to Yahoo finance, was 3.19 billion. I just did the math in my head, and my math isn't the greatest, but that seems roughly about 7%.

Also, I am not 100% sure how that is calculated. As in, how much operating overhead is taken out (as in salaries). It might just be things like rent/equipment/plant/etc. But it might include more. Not sure without looking at the actual report, which I'm not that interested in doing.

Still, total revenue was 4.86 billion. Even if you use those numbers, Kotick was grossly overpaid as a percentage of the company's performance. That still works out to about 5% of what Activision's TOTAL revenue was. As in every dollar the company took in.

And obviously, if you use other numbers, like EBITDA or net income, the percentage is even higher.

This kind of thing is the result of the short term thinking and short term incentives in his contract which I'm sure he and his lawyer drew up themselves, and that was then rubber-stamped by his clique of fellow CEOs and golfing buddies on the board and the compensation committee.

Paying people that much money or more doesn't do one damn bit of good for the overall economy. People that make millions of dollars are not spending a majority of that income back into the economy. Where most people living paycheck to paycheck are spending most or all of their income back into the economy, these execs only spend a tiny fraction of it back into the economy, which means the rest of their overinflated income sits unused. To sit on that much money is harmful to us all because it reduces incomes for the other 99%. It reduces lower class buying power, which reduces demand for goods and subsequently reduces demand for workers, leaving a surplus of labor and a shortage of consumers able to afford the goods being produced. We have a massive unemployment problem because the money is all sitting in plutocrat bank accounts and not being invested back into the people that really create jobs: consumers. This fuckwit Kotick doesn't deserve anywhere near the income he's getting. It could be cut by 99% and he'd still not end up spending the majority of his income on day to day purchases. It should be cut by 99% and redistributed to the people that generate real wealth so they can spend it on things that keep progress going. A CEO could live very well on $650K a year.

I really think this kind of madness should come to an end. Getting paid more than say 300K - 500K is just not justified. For sure he and other CEOs are not some kind of Albert Einstein of leadership and big-scale management, they are just abusing their position (power and visibility) to get a much better deal than other people in his company, who are for sure much more intellegent than him (but probably not more astute). I am referring to the engineers, artists and designers making the actual product, and who get buried at the end of the chain.

He may be good for his job, but his skills are for sure not one in a million. Also to reach these positions you need a good deal of high-profile contacts (more important than showing virtuosity in your skills), so the population in question is rather scarce, making even less probable the cause for him being a sort of genius.

I'm sure he would abuse his position if he was paid a little, just like most of politics, government workers etc. He is paid well to make sure he does his job right.

I really think this kind of madness should come to an end. Getting paid more than say 300K - 500K is just not justified. For sure he and other CEOs are not some kind of Albert Einstein of leadership and big-scale management, they are just abusing their position (power and visibility) to get a much better deal than other people in his company, who are for sure much more intellegent than him (but probably not more astute). I am referring to the engineers, artists and designers making the actual product, and who get buried at the end of the chain.

He may be good for his job, but his skills are for sure not one in a million. Also to reach these positions you need a good deal of high-profile contacts (more important than showing virtuosity in your skills), so the population in question is rather scarce, making even less probable the cause for him being a sort of genius.

Says who? You?

Money and value have a different perspective for everyone. If I say nobody should be paid more than 5K a year would that be fine for you? For some 100$ is allot of money, for others its dimes. Nobody should tell you what you should or not do with your money.

Private companies can pay what they want to their employees. Its not your money, neither its a public position in some government.

If a CEO makes a 50 million bonus that seems like allot of money, but if that CEO made the company earn 500 million new revenues that is 10%. Numbers means nothing.

If someone comes to me and can guarantee me to make me earn 100 million in exchange of % of the incomes for him, I would gladly pay him, and even more than 10%. There is nothing to lose.

You probably don't understand how private companies work, but usually stockholders are more than happy to make sure the person that makes them money stays happy. If a CEO goes skydiving, actions drop, because believe it or not, the CEO is a % of the companies value. Some of them can make you a millionaire and others will make you bankrupt.

Its more than fine to incentivize people that bring results.

About his skills, that is your personal opinion. Allot of smart people though he deserves that. He is smarter than everyone commenting here (including me), that is sure, otherwise you would be in his position earning that kind of money.

Paying people that much money or more doesn't do one damn bit of good for the overall economy. People that make millions of dollars are not spending a majority of that income back into the economy. Where most people living paycheck to paycheck are spending most or all of their income back into the economy, these execs only spend a tiny fraction of it back into the economy, which means the rest of their overinflated income sits unused. To sit on that much money is harmful to us all because it reduces incomes for the other 99%. It reduces lower class buying power, which reduces demand for goods and subsequently reduces demand for workers, leaving a surplus of labor and a shortage of consumers able to afford the goods being produced. We have a massive unemployment problem because the money is all sitting in plutocrat bank accounts and not being invested back into the people that really create jobs: consumers. This fuckwit Kotick doesn't deserve anywhere near the income he's getting. It could be cut by 99% and he'd still not end up spending the majority of his income on day to day purchases. It should be cut by 99% and redistributed to the people that generate real wealth so they can spend it on things that keep progress going. A CEO could live very well on $650K a year.

Not really true. People that earn this kind of money do not have the mind of those with a regular paycheck. They do not sit on that money, or put in the bank to die. They know how money works, and usually they put all their money back into the move, because the only way to generate money is putting it to work. This is why angel investors exists, or investing companies. They usually want to do something with their money. It does not really matter what, but they do see money as a tool of exchange, not as something of value to sit on.

So let's see, his yearly compensation is equal to about 7% of Activision's gross profit the last 12 months.

Obviously, he must be personally responsible for at least 7% of the company's revenue. Yeah.

Sounds about right. I remember that every time that I've been hesitant about buying an Activision/Blizzard game, it was the mental image of Kotick petting kittens and ending world hunger that allowed me to make up my mind and buy it.

I get that videogames hate him and he probably is bad for the videogames industry however as a CEO he is doing exactly what he is getting paid to do extremely well. Activisions games sell like hotcakes and the stock price reflects it. So though people are screaming about the endless string of sequels and destruction of their favorite series they end up being either a vocal minority or dishonest and up buying the games anyway. So though he may be a dick he obviously found the right balance. I doubt he cares what the public thinks of him while he is making $15mil plus huge stock bonuses a year.

Assuming Cheesewhiz's numbers are correct, do you think he is worth 7% of Activision's gross profits? If it was something like 0.5%, maybe, ok, but 7% is pretty huge.

Yes, a CEO can be as much as 45% of the company value, that for those that are truly geniuses.

Some companies go down after they lose their head position. Because the most priceless thing you can purchase is a brilliant mind. Ideas and thinking is the most expensive thing. And thinking is the hardest job ever, reason why we have so many idiots in our planet.

Paying people that much money or more doesn't do one damn bit of good for the overall economy. People that make millions of dollars are not spending a majority of that income back into the economy. Where most people living paycheck to paycheck are spending most or all of their income back into the economy, these execs only spend a tiny fraction of it back into the economy, which means the rest of their overinflated income sits unused. To sit on that much money is harmful to us all because it reduces incomes for the other 99%. It reduces lower class buying power, which reduces demand for goods and subsequently reduces demand for workers, leaving a surplus of labor and a shortage of consumers able to afford the goods being produced. We have a massive unemployment problem because the money is all sitting in plutocrat bank accounts and not being invested back into the people that really create jobs: consumers. This fuckwit Kotick doesn't deserve anywhere near the income he's getting. It could be cut by 99% and he'd still not end up spending the majority of his income on day to day purchases. It should be cut by 99% and redistributed to the people that generate real wealth so they can spend it on things that keep progress going. A CEO could live very well on $650K a year.

I'm sure someone had to build his big house, luxury car etc and believe me, they don't just sit on the money, because money lose value over the time. It's called inflation. If the money is kept in bank, bank invest his money for example into other companies in USA or worldwide that give job to other people. Obviously the money isn't evenly spread across the society (this why the many people hates rich) and this why there is infamous "1%" etc. This may be an issue, but the money isn't wasted.

Normally I have no problem with high pay for ceos. They may not be 500 times smarter/better than a normal employee but their decisions can easily create/destroy 500 times what a normal employee can do.

Apple would be toast without Steve Jobs. He is responsible for a large part of today's market cap of hundreds of billions of apple even if employees did the actual work.

And on the other hand amd should find and assassin the guy who sold their mobile chip development when they needed 50 million (sigh).

So i have no personal problem with high ceo pay. Contrary to the belief here they are responsible for a huge part of the performance of a company.

But if we are talking about bobby it is a different matter I think he is building a house of cards and I hope he ends coked up in a Russian jail.

Yes, a CEO can be as much as 45% of the company value, that for those that are truly geniuses.

Some companies go down after they lose their head position. Because the most priceless thing you can purchase is a brilliant mind. Ideas and thinking is the most expensive thing. And thinking is the hardest job ever, reason why we have so many idiots in our planet.

but then you also have idiots like Carly Fiorina who run the company into the ground, the stock price goes up significantly when they get the boot, and yet they still collect tens of millions of dollars because the "corporate compensation" process is thoroughly corrupt.

Not surprised to see Ellison is at the top. He's a yahoo and I'm sure his ego consumes a lot of money. All things considered Kotick is 3rd place in the long run, but still GE practically owns the health care tech market. That being said it's current CEO appears to be hurting the company by focusing on the bottom line too much. I really don't know much about Kotick, but wether your rich or poor everyones crazy or flawed in their own way.

For this reason I do wish articles (not just here) would use "compensated" instead of "paid" for situations like this. There is a real difference.

Compensate: give (someone) something, typically money, in recognition of loss, suffering, or injury incurred; recompense. /or/ make up for (something unwelcome or unpleasant) by exerting an opposite force or effect.

What exactly is he being "compensated" for? What sort of suffering is he doing that's worth USD20 million a year? Or, is the company so unpleasant that if quantified it's worth the same amount? Either way it seems like the company should improve this guy's working conditions and save shareholders some money.

I get that videogames hate him and he probably is bad for the videogames industry however as a CEO he is doing exactly what he is getting paid to do extremely well. Activisions games sell like hotcakes and the stock price reflects it. So though people are screaming about the endless string of sequels and destruction of their favorite series they end up being either a vocal minority or dishonest and up buying the games anyway. So though he may be a dick he obviously found the right balance. I doubt he cares what the public thinks of him while he is making $15mil plus huge stock bonuses a year.

Assuming Cheesewhiz's numbers are correct, do you think he is worth 7% of Activision's gross profits? If it was something like 0.5%, maybe, ok, but 7% is pretty huge.

Yes, a CEO can be as much as 45% of the company value, that for those that are truly geniuses.

Some companies go down after they lose their head position. Because the most priceless thing you can purchase is a brilliant mind. Ideas and thinking is the most expensive thing. And thinking is the hardest job ever, reason why we have so many idiots in our planet.

Define brilliant mind. A good CEO knows when to not interfere with people who know what they're doing. They're good at business, and organizing people, but not necessarily when it comes to engineering or coding. Bill Gates was a rare exception, but he too had shot comings that put him at a disadvantage.If you think thinking is the hardest job ever then you haven't spend much time working back-breaking labor. We over-use the world genius in our culture and elevate them to lofty heights.If there was such a thing as the smartest man in the world I'm sure he would be working for the 2nd smartest man in the world. Either that or he would be penny-less and engaged in a journey of spiritual enlightenment.

His compensation isn't really relevant for consumers... if I were a shareholder (other than the miniscule amount I own through index funds), I might care more. Otherwise, please don't think for a second the money would go toward hiring more programmers, lowering prices, or anything else of that sort. It'd simply lead to greater dividends for shareholders - and those who own a lot of stocks (where the difference in dividends actually has economic significance) aren't exactly poor themselves.

About his skills, that is your personal opinion. Allot of smart people though he deserves that. He is smarter than everyone commenting here (including me), that is sure, otherwise you would be in his position earning that kind of money.

All I see in some comments is nothing but envy.

You assume that all smart people have the end goal of becoming insanely rich. You are very wrong. Many of the world's greatest geniuses had little to no interest in money at all, in fact. Do you think Nikola Tesla invented in order to make money? What about Einstein? Feynman?

Do you know what motivated these people? Advancing science and, more generally, advancing society. Instead of being self-serving, greedy assholes, they dedicated themselves to pushing the boundaries of human understanding and, in the process, bettering their fellow men.

If you think that calling overpaid CEO's greedy asshats is indicative of "envy," you probably think just like them. The rest of us are calling them out because they are HARMFUL to society- they are not geniuses, they are assholes, and their actions hurt the very society they depend upon. They completely deserve the hate they garner.

Gross profit, according to Yahoo finance, was 3.19 billion. I just did the math in my head, and my math isn't the greatest, but that seems roughly about 7%.

Also, I am not 100% sure how that is calculated. As in, how much operating overhead is taken out (as in salaries). It might just be things like rent/equipment/plant/etc. But it might include more. Not sure without looking at the actual report, which I'm not that interested in doing.

Still, total revenue was 4.86 billion. Even if you use those numbers, Kotick was grossly overpaid as a percentage of the company's performance. That still works out to about 5% of what Activision's TOTAL revenue was. As in every dollar the company took in.

And obviously, if you use other numbers, like EBITDA or net income, the percentage is even higher.

Gross profit is before operating costs, salaries, tax and interest are taken out. It is strictly just revenue -cost of goods, which in the case of games is basically nothing as there is very little physical product. With games industry it is more useful to look at Operating Profit, i.e. Revenue minus operations expenses (salaries, lights and rent).

Using the term "genius" to describe 99% of CEO's is the height of jackassery and makes me want to throw up.

A Fields Medal winning mathematician or a Nobel prize winning physicist--those people are _geniuses_. Some dude who figures out novel ways to nickel and dime customers on the way to "generating shareholder value" is an asshole.

Kotick does his best to ruin my hobby through short-sighted profiteering. Eventually the "empire" he created is going to collapse from being sucked dry of all it's good ideas.

Remember Tony Hawk and Guitar hero?

Call of duty is headed the same direction.

Diablo 3 was developed with consoles in mind, in my opinion, from viewing all available evidence.

There is however the possibility that every 20 years or so everything old becomes new again, and that they as a company are banking on it. Churn out sequels until customers are sick of it, shelve it for a decade, wash, rinse, repeat.

Larry Ellison is on that list at #106. I don't know the methodology that Forbes was using since Ellison's 5 year compensation is $903 million. More than 3x the amount paid John H. Hammergren at #1. It also shows Ellison only making $15 million in 2012, which is much less than the Ars article states. A quick Google check shows Ellison's compensation in line with the article's, so I would assume the Forbes article was from 2011 or early 2012.